I wondered when John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate why the so called "Troopergate" scandal did not scare him off. I mean, why pick someone under a microscope with an ethics investigation hanging over her head? As I heard the specifics of the Walt Monegan firing, supposedly because he would not fire Palin's ex-brother-in-law who had so many problems of his own, it made more sense. The brother-in-law trooper was far from just "going through a messy divorce" as those in the media continually describe. He tasered his stepson, threatened Palin's family, etc. and was a trooper with a badge and a gun, so it would not have been unreasonable for her to want him fired. But all along Palin maintained that was not the reason Monegan was let go anyway -- that it was over disagreements over budget and policy. Maybe McCain was shown the memos/emails that have now been released to the public.

I received a copy of the documents last night and could only wonder how the media completely missed this story? (Okay, I know the answer.) The documents clearly show Monegan as someone completely out of control. He disagreed with Palin's budget, and went behind her back, and attempted to go over her head, to get his way, pushing a program that Palin had vetoed. He even took an unauthorized trip to Washington. Remember, he was a political appointee. The governor was his boss and he was off pushing an agenda that was at odds with hers. It was completely within her rights to fire him. Ed Morrisey reviewed the documents and has written an excellent summary of the story they tell. What is amazing, as Ed also says, is not that she fired Monegan, but that he was able to hang onto his job as long as he did.

According to the papers filed by Palin's legal team, that was not the only instance of insubordination from Monegan:

12/9/07: Monegan holds a press conference with Hollis French to push his own budget plan.

1/29/08: Palin's staffers have to rework their procedures to keep Monegan from bypassing normal channels for budget requests.

February 2008: Monegan publicly releases a letter he wrote to Palin supporting a project she vetoed.

June 26, 2008: Monegan bypassed the governor's office entirely and contacted Alaska's Congressional delegation to gain funding for a project.

From this presentation, it looks like Monegan had decided from the start to be a loose cannon in the Palin administration. The wonder of this isn't that he got fired -- it's how he managed to hang onto his job as long as he did. The response calls Monegan's trip to Washington the "final straw", and it's not difficult to see why. Monegan even admitted it in his valedictory e-mail to his colleagues, saying that he "had waited too long outside her door for her to believe that I supported her." Nor did Monegan file an ethics complaint, as the law would have required him to do, if he felt his termination violated state ethics laws. (Palin filed the complaint herself to argue the case.)

I don't see how anyone, including those in the media, could read those documents and not see ample reason for Palin to fire Monegan. And when you review the documents you also see the role Hollis French played in all this before there was even an investigation -- and then he was put in charge of it! Remember what the Clintonites said about Ken Starr during the Lewinsky investigation? Well, in the case of Hollis French, that stuff is actually true. It is almost too much to believe. Is there anyone left in the mainstream media that values the truth over the goal of getting their guy elected? I guess we will see.

Sarah Palin has been branded as being "under an ethical cloud" and all but convicted in the court of media opinion for firing Walt Monegan because he refused to fire her poor innocent brother-in-law trooper who was "going through a messy divorce with her sister." Once again the news consumer has been misled and no matter what is reported now, many will forever associate Palin with "ethics problems."

I really hope I am wrong, but I would be completely shocked if anyone at NBC, CBS, CNN or ABC (especially Kate Snow or Charlie Gibson) take the time to actually review these documents and accurately report their contents to their viewers. And don't even get me started on whether or not I believe they will ever devote as much attention to investigating Barack Obama's relationship with William Ayers or ACORN as they have to "Troopergate."

Update: Speaking of Ayers, there is an excellent piece at American Thinker today which does what the mainstream media won't -- investigate the real relationship Obama had with that guy he said just lives in his neighborhood. It is a must read.

Well then, based on this, we all eagerly await her promised "cooperation" with the investigation don't we? After all what does she have to hide? The truth will set her free.

Oh damn, that's right they took all that back.

The person who may have her finger on the nuclear trigger goes back on a promise to "cooperate" on an investigation that according to the "documents" should easily exonerate her. The person who may have her finger on the nuclear trigger can't stand up to news conference because of those meanies from the media.

They released LEGAL RECORDS to the press to prove thier point. If those LEGAL RECORDS are false or fabricated, there will be hell to pay. However, since those LEGAL RECORDS exonerate her in the Troopergate "scandal"... then obviously they're lying.

Is there a switch in your head to turn off critical thinking? I'd suggest you turn it back on. It'll serve you well.

If those records "exonerate her" as you claim shouldn't she be chomping at the bit to answer questions? After all it was a bi-partisan decision to investigate and a fellow republican who broke the tie to authorize subpoenas.

Here's the thing. She's a busy woman right now. There is AMPLE evidence in those LEGAL DOCUMENTS that she fired him for cause.

Here's the funny thing too. If those LEGAL DOCUMENTS are forged, it won't be hard to debunk them. (Rathergate anyone?) Then she'd be guilty of perjury, and both Palin and McCain would be sunk as a presidential ticket.

To make it perfectly clear for you. The ammunition she used to prove she doesn't need to talk to the investigators... if it's false is EXACTLY the ammunition they could use to remove her from office AND make her pay fines for bona fide Illegal activities.

Critical thinking would have served you well before asking that question. I advise you turn that switch back on.

and this, jp2: "He seems like a bastard, but in no way is what Palin did legal."

What does jp2 say now? "Teleprompter! Lies!"

When others raised a stink about this (in an off-topic moment), trying and convicting Palin with hearing only one side of the story, I said this:

"We may yet see emails that support Palin's contention about the budgetary disagreements. maybe we won't. But evidence on behalf of Palin will be produced to the panel and a lack of it splashed across the Internet does not mean it doesn't exist.

"It may end up being a little of both, but the investigation has to determine which has more merit."

No final determination has as yet to be made. Wait and see what comes of it. This is only the beginning of the other side of the story.

JFO, who is she not cooperating with? The media or the investigation? I think we have our answer here:

"The person who may have her finger on the nuclear trigger can't stand up to news conference because of those meanies from the media."

Why should she play games, like mock trials for public consumption, through news conferences with a media that has been so hostile to her? How do you know that the media didn't already have this information, yet chose not to report it? Their past behavior would be entirely consistent with it. They can dig up her wearing a Buchanan pin 12 years ago, go ballroom dancing with anyone who has ever had a beef with her, quote and misquote anything she has ever uttered, calculate the exact moment of conception of her daughter's pregnancy, opine on every single aspect of her life right down to her thoughts, all unfavorably, yet, they couldn't possibly even imagine that she might have had just cause for firing Monegan.

Having said that, I fully expect you nattering nab-bobs, to steal a phrase from Spiro, to all cry and whimper about it being a "right-wing" blog and holds no credibility.

IF so, go ahead, it not only expected, but a bet safe enough to put a few bucks on if a line was given in Vegas.

However, should you decide to have some modicum of intellectual honesty, for once, you will find within those 8 posts (and specifically this one) links to actual legal documents and citations of Alaskan law and Constitutional constraints that detail Palin has followed the letter of the local law.

AND the ONLY investigative body she has refused to appear before is one that lays far outside the legal process as set forth in local laws.

#1. The only "investigation" she needs to cooperate with is the one started in a bipartisan manner by the Alaska legislature.

#2. As a candidate if she can't stand up to a press conference I think it shows she's weak and if she's weak I don't want her finger on the nuclear trigger.

#3. Just to clarify - "guilt" or "innocence" can only be determined in a court of law. I'm not looking to see if she's "guilty" or "innocent", I just want to know the truth. And I repeat, what does she have to fear by testifying or even speaking to representatives of a bipartisan ordered investigation?

JFO, well thanx for clearing that up. At least you're willing to admit there's a difference that you needed to clarify.

"And I repeat, what does she have to fear by testifying or even speaking to representatives of a bipartisan ordered investigation?"

Why do you insist she's afraid of anything? Tell me, what has she not done that she's been requested, or even ordered, to do?

Documents have been requested and submitted that strongly support her claim that she did not fire Monegan for the reason he claims. Along with those documents was a motion to dismiss (I think that's the term) based on the strength of those documents. Nothing unusual there. Nothing at all. They may accept those documents as defacto proof that she did nothing wrong, or they may not. They're still in the discovery phase fer cryin' out loud.

Again, there is nothing to indicate that she is afraid to answer their questions.

My guess is that they will order direct testimony, she will comply, the media will go into convulsions turning it into a circus and millions of taxpayer dollars will be spent along with 27 acres of rain forest destroyed in printing stories and then she'll be exonerated.

JFO - "marc- you really ought to go back and read my comments before saying stupid things about them. What link did I make?"

Sorry, you're right, that was jp2 that provided to far off topic link. It's one of those two peas in a pod type things. You two are nearly indistinguishable at times.

However my larger point stands and will point to your latest:

#3. Just to clarify - "guilt" or "innocence" can only be determined in a court of law. I'm not looking to see if she's "guilty" or "innocent", I just want to know the truth. And I repeat, what does she have to fear by testifying or even speaking to representatives of a bipartisan ordered investigation?

You made the accusation, what investigation or panel has she refused to appear before?

Lets correct the assertion that you made that "documents were requested and submitted" - the inference being that this shows cooperation. What has actually happened is that she has filed a motion to dismiss AND attached documents purporting to support the claim. They were not documents in answer to a request for documents so lets be clear about that. They were selective documents that appear to support an argument.

Are there other documents? Under what circumstances were theses documents written? Was there any discussion(s) with Palin prior to them being written? Who might have been present when they were written? Who actually drafted the documents? Did anyone on behalf of the governor direct that the documents be drafted? If so to any of the above, how, where, when and why. And so on - all legitimate questions and ones legitimately addressed to the governor amongst others.

Certainly you wouldn't argue that the appropriate authorities of the state of Alaska should simply accept these documents on face value with no opportunity for anyone to ask questions about them. And one of those persons who should be asked is the governor.

Again, what has she got to lose by either testifying or talking to the bipartisan appointed investigator?

It's patently obvious you spent ZERO time reading the links I provided above. (OH, what a shock, not really it was predicted!)

Three words for ya: Personnel Board investigation.

That board is the one and only panel with the legal authority via Alaskan State law to hear complaints under the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

Also note this section of the 1st para in your link: "Alaska lawmakers to review the firing"

Why, deletion of ref or not, was it "tainted?"

1. That panel is Illegal under local law.

2. It was "tainted" because of the presence of Steve Branchflower and his connections to the "legislature investigation." (And yes, it's a long story and AGAIN you will have to use a bit of initiative and read it)

I was wrong to say they requested documents. But that itself is really neither here nor there. It's a given that since Monegan has handed over documentation that it would be expected of Palin as well. Documentation is a necessary part of any such investigation.

I get the distinct impression that you have a problem with her defense in handing over documents and requesting a dismissal. I don't. It's a perfectly normal part of the process and in no way implies guilt or innocence.

Apparently there is a dispute right now over whether or not the panel put together has proper jurisdiction over the matter. I expect that will either be settled or the panel will go on with its investigation regardless (which they have said they would do) until that time.

You keep implying that she will not talk to anyone when she hasn't been asked to yet. She's got plenty to lose if it's a hurried investigation that hasn't thoroughly examined everything, spoken to everyone involved and they come to the wrong decision.

Certainly you wouldn't argue that every person deserves a thorough and fair examination of all the facts.

You have a lot of questions, but so does everyone else. Your impatience is duly noted.

I take a slight offense at your implication that I might think they should just accept the documents and say, "Hey, sorry. My bad," simply because I said:

They may accept those documents as defacto proof that she did nothing wrong, or they may not.

I care not a wit whether she plays footsies with the media, satisfying their thirst for more dirt to wallow in. I don't think it has any bearing whatsoever on nuclear buttons nor do I think it indicates any sense of "fear" of them.

I don't really care to discuss it further though until there are more developments.

Thanks for the legal lesson marc. I know that you claim to know pretty much everything about anything but I didn't know you practiced law in Alaska. Wow - I'm impressed. This may come as a shock to you but I never read anything your write unless it's in direct response to a comment I made. It's usually to be amused by your spluttering insults and frequent anal references. (By the way,what is it with your fascination and obsession with the things of the anus? )

So i did click on your little link to read these authoritative sources of "legal documents" and "Alaska Law." Now what do you think I found? That world renowned authority of the laws of the various states of the US called Flopping Aces. Who'd of thought marc that a right wing blog that sounds like a poker site would be a renowned authority on law? Little did I know till you enlightened me.

You've outdone yourself this time. And by the way please never lecture me or anyone else on what you say, with alleged authority, what the law is.

Again a simple question. If this tough woman is so tough why not just answer some simple questions?

Joh, I agree, but I wouldn't believe them because of all the smears and lies that the media and the left has told about her and her family. Why ever would I believe that "they were digging up bodies in their back yard" be any different???

Works about the same as the old "Bushitler lied us into a war" canard.